fingerprinting – the uk landscape · comparing a fingerprint against a catalogue of known...

Enabling Partnerships for

Innovation in Forensic Science

tinyurl.com/FoSciSIG

Fingerprinting – the UK Landscape: Processes, Stakeholders and Interactions

April 2015

2

Forensic Science Special Interest Group

Imprint


Written byHelen Earwaker, Dave Charlton and Steve Bleay

Published by Knowledge Transfer Network Bailey House 4-10 Barttelot Road Horsham West Sussex RH12 1DQ +44 (0)1403 251 354 www.ktn-uk.org@KTNUK © Knowledge Transfer Network, Helen Earwaker, Dave Charlton and Steve Bleay, 2015

*KTN and its collaborators do not accept any legal responsibility for any errors, omissions or misleading statements in this report and cannot endorse products, services or individual organisations referenced within this report. The authors of this report and its contents do not necessarily represent the views of the Forensic Science Special Interest Group, Innovate UK or the Department for Business Innovation & Skills.

3

April 2015


April 2015

Executive Summary

The aim of this report is to provide a current view of the landscape of the fingerprinting domain, within the United Kingdom. This report will identify the key stakeholders, within UK fingerprinting, and deter-mine the current channels of communication, knowledge transfer, and innovation across the UK by delivering the following elements:

• A description of the history of fingerprinting in the forensic domain, and the process followed during the recovery and comparison of fingerprint evidence;

• A summary of the key stakeholders influencing this process;• A description of the role of these key stakeholders within the fingerprint domain including:

◊ The role of policing stakeholders;◊ The role of training and accreditation bodies;

• Current fingerprint research and development;• A number of case studies illustrating examples of knowledge transfer between stakeholders and

innovation within the fingerprinting domain; and• Gap analysis leading to recommendations for the Forensic Science Special Interest Group to facil-

itate increased communication and innovation in this domainThis report has been compiled following consultation with a number of specialists within UK fingerprint-ing. However, it is acknowledged that this report does not represent the views of all contributors and that there are often differences of opinion and local alternatives to structures and procedures, which mean that the information contained within this report should be taken as a guide only. This report has been published to allow further consultation within the fingerprint community.Terminology specific to the fingerprint domain included within the report is defined in the glossary of domain specific terms at the back of the document. Further, there are additional terms listed in the glos-sary that are not directly referred to in the main body of the text, but may be of benefit to those unfamiliar with fingerprinting terminology.

4


Contents1. Introduction 6 1.1 Aims and Scope 6 1.2 Methodology 62. Introduction to Fingerprinting 7 2.1 A brief history of fingerprinting 7 2.2 What is a Fingerprint? 7 2.3 Properties of friction ridge skin 8 2.4 Fingermark (Including Palm) Deposition: 9 2.5 Fingerprints Taken Under Controlled Conditions 9 2.6 Current Issues and Challenges to the Acceptance of Fingerprint Evidence: The Need for Innovation 93 The Fingerprinting Process: Crime Scene to Court 12 3.1 Fingerprint Evidence: Processes, Stakeholders, and Influences 12 3.2 The increasing importance of technology within the fingerprinting process 14 3.3 The Wider Application of Fingerprinting in the UK 154. Key Stakeholders 19 4.1 Policing Stakeholders and their principal functions 20 4.1.1 National and Regional Bodies, and the Judiciary 20 4.1.2 Police Forensic Stakeholders 21 CASE STUDY 1 Sharing Academic and Fingerprint Laboratory Resources: Portsmouth University and Hampshire Police 22 4.1.3 Police Non Forensic Stakeholders 26 4.2 Training, Regulation and Accreditation Stakeholders 27 4.2.1 Training Stakeholders 27 4.2.2 Regulatory Stakeholders 27 4.2.3 Professional Bodies 28 4.2.4 Accreditation Stakeholders 29 4.3 Industry Stakeholders 30 4.3.1 Technology Manufacturers 30 4.3.2 Equipment and Systems Suppliers 31 4.3.3 Forensic Providers (providing specialist fingerprinting services) 32 4.4 Teaching, Research and Development Stakeholders, and Current Innovation 32 4.4.1 Academic Forensic Science in the UK 32 4.4.2 Gaining Academic Credit for Vocational Training 33 CASE STUDY 2 The Benefits of Accreditation to Academic Courses 33 4.4.3 Fingerprint Research and Development 34 RECOMMENDATION 1 Dissemination of Research – Bridging the Gap Between Academia and Practitioners 36 4.4.4 Examples of Multi-Stakeholder Innovation and Collaborative Approaches 37 CASE STUDY 3 Taking Fingerprint Research and Development to Market 37 CASE STUDY 4 The Development of FIBRE – An Academia, Industry & Practitioner Partnership 395. Communication and Knowledge Transfer within UK Fingerprinting 40 5.1 Local and National Forums for Fingerprint Communication and Knowledge Transfer 40

5

April 2015

5.1.1 The Recent History of Formal Communication within UK Fingerprinting 40 5.1.2 Current Forums for Communication 41 RECOMMENDATION 2 A National Organised Forum for Fingerprint Enhancement Laboratory Communication and Increased Interaction between Laboratory and Bureau Stakeholders 43 5.2 Communication between Fingerprint Enhancement Laboratories and their Partner Fingerprint Bureaux 44 RECOMMENDATION 3 Considerations for an ideal relationship between Laboratories and Bureaux 456. Innovation for the Future – Challenges and Goals 46 6.1 The Current and Future Challenges to UK Fingerprinting 46 6.2 Transferring Knowledge and Experience from External Stakeholders 46 CASE STUDY 5 The Dutch National Police Services Agency; A Novel Approach to Fingerprint Comparison Workflow 47 CASE STUDY 6 The British Transport Police Model of Creativity and Innovation: Enabling Innovation From the Ground Up 49 RECOMMENDATION 4 Ground Level Innovation 51 6.3 Examples of Key Issues for Future Innovation 52 6.3.1 Cognitive Issues in the Fingerprint Domain 52 6.3.2 Remote Transmission 52 6.3.3 Future Research Needs within Fingermark Development 53 6.4 Funding for Fingerprinting Research 547. Conclusion and Summary of Recommendations 558. Authorship and Acknowledgements 569. Glossary of Domain Specific Terms 5710. Further Reading 5911. Appendix 61 Appendix 1: Common Fingerprint Development Techniques 62Appendix 2: The Process of Fingerprint Comparison: ACE-V 63Appendix 3: Forensic Training at the College of Policing 64Appendix 4: The CAST Fingermark Visualisation Manual 65Appendix 5: Examples of Current Fingerprint Research and Development 67Appendix 6: Past and Ongoing Output of the Fingerprint Quality Standards Specialist Group 71

List of FiguresFigure 1 – Types of fingerprint ridge detail 8Figure 2 – Levels of ridge detail within a fingerprint 8Figure 3 – The process diagram - Fingerprint evidence: processes, stakeholders, and influences 13Figure 4 – CERA LT and HPS –from laboratory to commercial instruments 38Figure 5 – The history of formal communication forums within the fingerprint community 40

List of TablesTable 1 – Categorisation of key stakeholders 19 Table 2 – Advantages of Portsmouth University and Hampshire Police collaboration 23Table 3 – Challenges of Portsmouth University and Hampshire Police collaboration 24

6


1. Introduction

1.1 Aims and Scope

This report aims to provide a current account of the fingerprinting landscape within the United Kingdom that will be of benefit and interest to:

• Fingerprint practitioners and operational management; and• A lay audience of external innovators.

The report documents the current fingerprinting landscape in a factual manner, mapping the taking of fingerprints in order to establish identity as well as the progression of fingermark evidence from crime scene to court, documenting and describing the key stakeholders influencing this process, and detailing the communication and knowledge transfer that occurs within UK fingerprinting. In addition, the report also provides case studies of innovation and interactions along with more subjective recommendations and comments.The scope of this document is primarily limited to the police force-based processes for the production of fingerprint evidence within the UK Criminal Justice System, rather than the wider forensic use of finger-prints (border control, customs, visas, and intelligence and defence applications). However, the report acknowledges that further work on this ‘landscape’ would be beneficial to external innovators.This report is intended to be the starting point for discussion and further input will comprehensively map the fingerprinting community. Whilst the authors have made every effort to provide a comprehensive guide to UK fingerprinting, it is acknowledged that we cannot provide an exhaustive list of fingerprinting stakeholders or current research.

1.2 Methodology

This report has been produced through a combination of discussion and interviews with stakeholders from a number of different domains within the fingerprinting community, the tacit knowledge and expe-rience of the contributing authors, and through desk research.Authorship of the report has been split between three co-authors, chosen for their varied experience and backgrounds. The diversity of the authors’ experiences ensures that the report is neither fingermark development nor fingerprint interpretation centric, but covers both of these aspects of the fingerprinting process equally. Author profiles are provided in Chapter 8.A full list of contributing stakeholders is also provided in Chapter 8.

7

April 2015

2. Introduction to Fingerprinting

2.1 A brief history of fingerprinting

For over 100 years, fingerprints have been used in the UK for the purposes of human identification within the Criminal Justice System. Indeed, fingerprinting was the first form of reliable identification evidence and is still the most widely used in the UK. Other identification science such as DNA can individualise to a point, but only fingerprints can discriminate between close familial connections such as identical twins. Fingerprint identification techniques utilise technologies that are both relatively inexpensive to use and can provide results in seconds to the end user.The principles associated with fingerprint identification were established in the late 1800s and the first UK bureau set up in Scotland Yard in 1901 by Sir Edward Henry; the Police Commissioner at that time. It is still the case that fingerprint visualisation, recovery and comparison is largely a function conducted by police forces in the UK, rather than privately owned forensic service providers. The identification of persons by means of fingerprints involves the comparison of marks deposited by uncontrolled contacts at crime scenes, with prints taken under controlled circumstances and stored on a database or maintained as paper records. There are several stages involved in reporting an identifi-cation, which will all support and corroborate the circumstances surrounding a criminal investigation; the detection of crime scene latent fingerprints, enhancement of fingerprints, imaging of fingerprints, transmission of fingerprints, comparison of marks, reporting of conclusions as well as the context in which such material is located. The exact methodology employed by examiners is known as ‘ACE – V’, whereby the examiner will follow a process of analysis, comparison and evaluation followed by a verifi-cation process, before a report is issued to investigators.Comparing a fingerprint against a catalogue of known individuals, may have taken weeks or even months by dedicated human examiners as little as 30 years ago. This can now be conducted using technology, such as automated fingerprint matchers, in a matter of seconds. A key challenge for fingerprinting in the modern age, and, indeed, for other methods of human identification, is to reduce the time and cost of the process, whilst maintaining the speedy notification of intelligence to aid an investigation and main-tain evidential quality.For a more comprehensive history of the use of fingerprints please refer to the bibliography in the appen-dix to this publication.

2.2 What is a Fingerprint?

A fingerprint is made up of friction ridge skin that has fractures and interruptions within the structure known as Galton details, (also known as ridge characteristics or minutiae).It is these characteristics (see Figure 1) that, when visible to the fingerprint examiner, enable a deter-mination of individualisation of a crime scene fingermark against the ten-print card (the collection of all ten finger and thumb prints of an individual, often also including their palm prints) of a person of interest in the case. The person of interest may be a suspect, but may also be a person who requires exclusion or elimination. There are two primary classifications of the characteristics to be found, namely, ridge endings (A), where ridges stop abruptly, and bifurcations, where a ridge divides into two (B).

8


Figure 1– Types of fingerprint ridge detail (courtesy of the College of Policing, previously NPIA Training School).

There are variations on the theme for these primary characteristics. For example:• A lake is where two bifurcations join together (C)• An independent ridge is a short ridge that is divorced from any other ridge (D)• A spur (E) is a combination of a small independent ridge and a bifurcation • A crossover (F), as the name suggest, is a small ridge joined at each end to two parallel ridges.

Fingerprint examiners (who are responsible for carrying out comparisons between fingermarks, recov-ered from crime scenes and fingerprints taken from persons of interest in the case) should assess holis-tically all features within a fingerprint from which to make conclusions as to identity. These features are broken down into three levels of detail (see Figure 2). Level one refers to the basic pattern of the print, level two refers to the Galton details described earlier, and level three refers to the configuration of sweat pores and shapes of the ridge edges.

1st Level 2nd Level 3rd LevelFigure 2 – Levels of ridge detail within a fingerprint (courtesy of the College of Policing, previously NPIA Training School).

2.3 Properties of friction ridge skin

Whether a fingermark is deposited accidentally at a crime scene, or whether a fingerprint is taken under controlled conditions from a donor, it is the nature of friction ridge skin contained within the deposit that makes it an ideal medium from which to individualise a person. Fingerprints are considered both unique and permanent due to the mechanism of friction ridge skin formation in the womb. To date, no friction ridge skin has been found to have changed between birth and death. The only exception to this could be a case of a deep-seated injury to a sub-dermal level of the skin structure. In such an instance, scar-ring may subtly change the appearance and flow of the friction ridges. Friction ridges have regenerating properties at skin cell level. However, there are a number of skin diseases that could permanently affect friction ridge appearance and also professions, such as bricklaying and other manual work, which could impact upon the quality of visible ridge features within a person’s fingerprint.

9

April 2015

2.4 Fingermark (Including Palm) Deposition:

A latent fingermark is deposited when an area of friction ridge skin comes into contact with a surface causing the transfer of the constituents present along the ridges of the skin to the surface in question. This ‘latent’ fingermark is not readily visible and may require physical or chemical enhancement in order for a representation of the fingermark to be recovered that can be used for comparison purposes. ‘Patent’ fingermarks are those that are deposited in a visible contaminant such as blood or dirt. These marks are often more readily visible, but still may require some enhancement. In addition fingermark impressions may be left in a soft surface such as wet paint or putty.Latent fingermarks are composed of the natural secretions found within human sweat and environ-mental contaminants that will adhere to the surface of the hand (dirt and grease etc.). The sweat is pre-dominately composed of water, but also contains highly complex water-soluble organic and inorganic materials, including amino acids. Knowledge of the constituents likely to be present within a fingermark, and the factors that can affect their distribution and persistence, allow the development of novel and innovative techniques to visual-ise latent fingermarks. These will include specific chemical enhancement techniques as well as the use of light sources and digital capture techniques to aid visualisation of fingermarks deposited at a crime scene.

2.5 Fingerprints Taken Under Controlled Conditions

Fingerprints can be taken from donors in a controlled environment using a combination of digital capture using scanning technology (such as live-scan) in a custody suite, for example, or can be recovered using the more traditional methods of ink and paper, such as in the recovery of elimination fingerprints from a victim of crime. In taking prints in controlled conditions, it is possible to recover far more detail within the fingers and palms and to include all areas of potential interest within a fingerprint to enable a full comparison against the fingermarks recovered from crime scenes. Fingerprints recovered in this way can result from donation under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) legislation from sus-pects of criminal activity, or from members of the public who may donate prints to facilitate elimination against marks recovered from a crime scene. It should be noted that the taking of any prints in connec-tion with a criminal investigation is covered by PACE including prints given voluntarily or with consent. More recently, fingerprints taken under controlled conditions may also facilitate criminal records checks for those working with children or vulnerable persons as well as general biometric vetting for new staff entering specific professions where security checks are necessary.

2.6 Current Issues and Challenges to the Acceptance of Fingerprint Evidence: The Need for Innovation

Fingerprint identification has come under scrutiny in recent years (for further information see Cole, McKie, Fingerprint Inquiry Scotland and Dror in the further reading appendix to this report). Challenges to the validity of fingerprinting as a forensic tool and the way in which such evidence should be accepted by and presented to the courts and the wider criminal justice system has, in part, resulted from the perception that human error in the profession has yet to be evaluated and quantified. Erroneous identi-fications (and missed identifications) have led to recognition by forensic practitioners, academia and the wider justice system that fingerprint examination is a subjective, opinion based practice. This, to one degree or other, is influenced by cognitive human traits, including contextual bias and priming as well as perceptual weaknesses in the human practitioner. This is not to say that human practitioners are not good at what they do; in fact expert practitioners are proven to be highly reliable in their performance. However, technology can and should be harnessed to support the work they do and to perform certain cognitive tasks where technology may be better suited to the task in hand. This may improve overall accuracy and reliability of the process and provide reassurances to the public and wider justice system.

10


Below is a case example where a misidentification occurred:Shirley McKie (a Police Officer) was arrested for perjury for stating under oath during a murder trial that a mark, which was matched to her thumb during routine elimination checks, was in fact not hers. Latent print examiners from other agencies around the world challenged the validity of the identification and after multiple investigations and a public inquiry into the events surrounding this incident; McKie was vindicated when the original match was ruled as a misidentification. This case probably represents one of the most detailed and deepest assessments globally of the state of fingerprint analysis. The judicial inquiry resulted in many recommendations on the future of fingerprint science, and the processes and procedures that needed to be introduced to improve the safety and reliability of the evidence provided (Fingerprint Inquiry Scotland 2011).

Key recommendations within the Inquiry:1. Fingerprint evidence should be recognised as opinion evidence and not fact. Those involved in the

criminal justice system need to assess it as such on its merits. 2. Examiners should discontinue reporting conclusions on identification or exclusion with a claim to

100% certainty or on any other basis suggesting that fingerprint evidence is infallible.3. Examiners should receive training which emphasises that their findings are based on personal opinion;

and that this opinion is influenced by the quality of the materials that are examined, their ability to observe detail in mark and print reliably, the subjective interpretation of observed characteristics, and the cogency of explanations for any differences and the subjective view of ‘sufficiency’.

4. Differences of opinion between examiners should not be referred to as ‘disputes’. 5. The Standard Operating Procedures of the Scottish Police Services Authority should set out in detail

the ACE-V process that is to be followed. I should explain here that ACE-V is an acronym for analyse, compare, evaluate, verify and is a process that fingerprint examiners are encouraged to follow.

6. Features on which examiners rely should be demonstrable to a lay person with normal eyesight as observable in the mark.

7. Explanations for any differences between a mark and a print require to be cogent if a finding of iden-tification is to be made.

8. A finding of identification should not be made if there is an unexplained difference between a mark and a print.

9. The Scottish Police Services Authority should develop a process to ensure that complex marks (such as Y7 and QI2 Ross) are treated differently. The examination should be undertaken by three suitably qualified examiners who reach their conclusion independently and make notes at each stage of their examination. The substantive basis for the examiners’ conclusions should be reviewed. The reasons why they have reached their respective conclusions should be explored and recorded, even where they agree that an identification can be made.

10. An emphasis needs to be placed on the importance not only of learning and practising the method-ology of fingerprint work, but also of engaging with members of the academic community working in the field.

11

April 2015

Displaying grave dissatisfaction with police-dominated latent fingerprint identification prac-tices in England and Wales, the Court of Appeal in R. v. Smith, [2011] EWCA Crim 1296, quashed a murder conviction. Initially the examiner had concluded that there was insufficient detail for a meaningful comparison. After he learned that a suspect had been charged with the murder, the examiner re-examined the evidence with the aid of “a new scanning and print-ing machine which enabled him to run the print off and compare print to print more easily.” He “concluded that the ridge flow and 12 ridge characteristics could now be identified with the fingerprint from the suspect’s left forefinger.” His report simply stated that “In forming my opinion I have considered the amount of detail, its relative position and sequence and general quality. I have no doubt that the area of friction ridge detail indicated in the photo-graph was made by [the suspect].” He made “no working notes” because “he did a con-tinuous analysis and his working notes were in effect the photographs.” Two officers in the same police department verified the identification without meaningful documentation. At trial, the three fingerprint officers testified to the identification. A defence expert testified— “that he had never seen a fingerprint officer identify a print of such poor quality.” But at the last minute, the defence choose not to have its principal expert testify because the Crown planned to attack her qualifications and work in other cases. She described herself as being qualified because she had trained “in Modern Fingerprint Technology,” had “successfully completed the Advanced Latent Fingerprint Course with Metro Dade Police, Florida, USA,” and was “an active member of the International Association of Identification.” The appellate court heard testimony from two retired police fingerprint examiners. They pro-posed that the Crown’s examiners had confused furrows with ridges and that they had ignored a part of the image that excluded the defendant as the source of the bloody print. The original examiner advanced what appeared to be a post hoc theory that the defendant had touched the door handle twice and that this explained why the defence analysts had a different interpreta-tion of the part of the print on which he had relied for his identification.In a future under ISO 17025 whereby the recording of how decisions were made in an efficient and contemporaneous manner will be important innovation into the presentation of complex fingerprint decisions in a courtroom (or via Streamlined Forensic Reporting) is an area where improvement is needed.

Other challenges facing fingerprint examination include the potential introduction of probabilistic assess-ments of fingerprint evidence similar to the way DNA evidence is analysed and presented in the courts. The challenge in developing probabilistic tools is to accurately replicate the ability to assign a probabi-listic value to the identification conclusion using holistic information within the fingerprint. At this time probabilistic models exist but rely upon limited information within the friction ridge skin (primarily the pattern and ridge flow) and do not take into account the many other features within a fingerprint that examiners use to establish either identification or exclusion. This is hindering wider acceptance of the principles of probabilistic evidence being accepted by practitioners. However, this issue does provide a great opportunity for innovation partners to provide solutions to these problems.It is crucial that innovators have a sound knowledge of the landscape of fingerprinting and are aware that any future technology must be sufficiently robust to stand up to tough scrutiny in a court of law as well as satisfy the scrutiny of validation under future ISO 17025 accreditation which is expected to be introduced for fingerprint bureaux in the UK in 2018. ISO 17025 will require both the accreditation of the practitioners through competency and proficiency testing, as well as the calibration and validation of any processes (including technology) that are introduced into the fingerprint domain.

12


3 The Fingerprinting Process: Crime Scene to Court

3.1 Fingerprint Evidence: Processes, Stakeholders, and Influences

The diagram presented in Figure 3 has been produced to map the core process of fingerprinting from crime scene to court. This diagram illustrates the standard progression of fingerprint evidence within the criminal justice system, from the point that a crime is committed to the judicial outcome of the criminal case. The core process of the generation and production of fingerprint evidence is illustrated within the pale blue boxes in the centre of the diagram. These follow a chronological chain of events from the crime scene, through the laboratory and the fingerprint bureau, into the courtroom. The stages detail the processes of recov-ery, recording and comparing of fingermarks. The diagram illustrates a number of the main external influences on this core process. Influences upon the entire process from crime scene to court are shown at the top of the diagram, while those relating to either the fingerprint laboratory or the fingerprint bureau in isolation, are given at the respective sides of the diagram. External influences upon particular stages in the process are indicated with arrows con-necting them to the aspect of the process that they influence and displaying the directionality of this influence. All external influences are colour coded to relate to one of four categories of stakeholder (to be further discussed in Chapter 4) – training, accreditation and regulation; policing; academia; and industry.It should be noted that this diagram represents an approximation of the fingerprint evidential process and, as each UK police force will have different policies, procedures, and working practices, there may well be local variation in this process. The introduction of Forensic Streamlined Reporting (SFR) has had a dramatic effect on the reduction in the amount of cases where full evidential statements are required. Of note for innovators is the way the SFR process may generate questions arising from the defence in relation to orientation and positioning of marks, or age of fingerprints left at a scene. Such questions, and others, should be considered as important areas where innovation is needed.

JUD

ICIA

L O

UT

CO

MECR

IME

SCEN

ESC

ENES

OF

CRIM

E OF

FICE

R

FINGERPRINT LABORATORY

FINGERPRINT BUREAU

FING

ERPR

INT

LABO

RATO

RY

PRAC

TITI

ONER

FING

ERPR

INT

EXAM

INER

INF

LUE

NC

ES

ON

TH

E O

VE

RA

LL P

RO

CE

SS

Fo

rens

ic R

egul

ato

rS

cien

tific

Sup

po

rt M

anag

ers

COUR

T

Cro

wn

Pro

secu

tion

Ser

vice

Sen

ior

Inve

stig

atin

g O

ffic

er

Insu

ffic

ient

qua

lity

fing

erm

arks

no

t re

cord

ed

Ho

me

Off

ice

CA

ST

ad

vice

/ r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns

Eq

uip

men

t p

rovi

der

s, s

yste

ms

pro

vid

ers

and

tec

hno

log

y m

anuf

actu

rers

Una

ble

to

dev

elo

p f

ing

erm

arks

in s

itu;

colle

ct e

vid

entia

l ite

m

Po

tent

ial t

race

evi

den

ce c

olle

ctio

n

Eq

uip

men

t p

rovi

der

s, s

yste

ms

pro

vid

ers,

tec

hno

log

y m

anuf

actu

rers

Inco

nclu

sive

Iden

tific

atio

n fo

und

Iden

tific

atio

n ag

reed

INFLUENCES ON FINGERPRINT LABORATORY PROCESSES

Professional Bodies

UKAS Accreditation

In Force Training & Development

College of Policing Training Input

INFLUENCES ON FINGERPRINT BUREAU PROCESSES

College of Policing Training Input

Professional Bodies

The Fingerprint Quality Standards Working Group

In Force Training & DevelopmentFI

NGER

PRIN

T EV

IDEN

CE P

ROCE

SSES

, STA

KEHO

LDER

S AN

D IN

FLUE

NCES

JANU

ARY

2014

Reg

ulat

ion,

Acc

red

itatio

n &

Tra

inin

g

Res

earc

h &

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Res

earc

h &

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Po

licin

g /

Law

Enf

orc

emen

t

Ind

ustr

y

STAK

EHOL

DER

KEY

Insu

ffic

ient

qua

lity

for

com

par

iso

n /

excl

usio

n

Tech

nolo

gy

man

ufac

ture

rs

(rem

ote

tra

nsm

issi

on)

Sci

entif

ic S

upp

ort

C

our

ier

Sys

tem

Loca

te it

em o

f ev

iden

ce li

kely

to

yie

ld f

ing

erm

arks

A

ND

/ O

R

Loca

te /

dev

elo

p f

ing

erm

arks

& d

eter

min

e q

ualit

y

Co

mp

are

with

exe

mp

lar

fing

erp

rint

Eva

luat

e th

e p

rese

nce

of

any

feat

ures

tha

t ar

e no

t co

nsis

tent

bet

wee

n th

e tw

o p

rint

s

Acc

ess

susp

ect

tenp

rint

imag

es O

R

run

IDE

NT

1 se

arch

on

crim

e sc

ene

fing

erm

arks

Rec

ove

r d

evel

op

ed f

ing

erm

arks

. P

hoto

gra

ph

/ lif

t /

scan

pri

nts

in s

itu

Ana

lyse

fin

ger

mar

k

Sui

tab

le q

ualit

y fo

r co

mp

aris

on

/ ex

clus

ion

Pro

tect

ion

of

Fre

edo

ms

Act

Str

eam

lined

Fo

rens

ic R

epo

rtin

g

Elim

inat

ion

foun

d

Veri

fy m

atch

(c

arri

ed o

ut b

y se

cond

exa

min

er)

Elim

inat

ion

foun

d

Pre

sent

atio

n o

f id

entif

icat

ion

evid

ence

/

elim

inat

ion

evid

ence

to

Jur

y /

Mag

istr

ate

Just

ifica

tion

of

met

hod

olo

gy

to J

ury

/ M

agis

trat

e

Sta

tem

ent

pro

vid

ed

Che

mic

al /

phy

sica

l tr

eatm

ent

seq

uenc

e ch

ose

n

Trea

tmen

t se

que

nce

carr

ied

out

Exa

min

atio

n o

f ite

m

Det

erm

ine

qua

lity

of

fing

erm

arks

Suf

ficie

nt q

ualit

y fin

ger

mar

ks

reco

rded

& s

ubm

itted

to

Bur

eau

Po

lice

forc

e p

hoto

gra

phi

c d

epar

tmen

t

Ext

erna

l Pro

vid

er R

esea

rch

Pro

gra

m

Ho

me

Off

ice

CA

ST

res

earc

h

Aca

dem

ic R

esea

rch

The

Ass

oci

atio

n o

f F

ore

nsic

Sci

ence

Pro

vid

ers

Ho

me

Off

ice

CA

ST

ad

vice

/ r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns

Co

lleg

e o

f P

olic

ing

Tra

inin

g In

put

Independent Experts

CR

IME

CO

MM

ITT

ED

Sus

pec

t In

telli

gen

ce

Independent Experts

Feed

back

: hel

en.e

arw

aker

@es

pktn

.org

Sub

mis

sio

n to

ext

erna

l se

rvic

e p

rovi

der

Figu

re 3

- Th

e pr

oces

s di

agra

m -

Fing

erpr

int e

viden

ce: p

roce

sses

, sta

keho

lder

s, a

nd in

fluen

ces

14


3.2 The increasing importance of technology within the fingerprinting process

From the crime scene to the courtroom, technology is now changing the nature of the human contribu-tion to the assessment of fingerprint evidence. New technologies continue to impact and encroach upon the traditional human cognitive process, sometimes taking over such functions altogether. In considering the impact of technology on the evidential journey it should not be forgotten that the custody process from the moment a suspect becomes known to investigators is also subject to technological influence. Whether it be roadside checks using digital fingerprint devices to ascertain identity, or whether it be the digital capture of ten-prints within the custody charging centres; Livescan and Mobile ID devices are now becoming more portable, easier to use, as well as more efficient and time saving. The use of ink and paper is largely a thing of the past and even the current digital technology is beginning to look ‘old hat’ against new technologies that no longer require direct contact between the donor and the recording device (ultrasonic fingerprint readers).Technology will have a different impact dependent upon where in the judicial process it is applied to support fingerprint evidence. For example at the crime scene, CSIs will need to both locate and assess fingerprint evidence. There have been varying degrees of success in developing technology to better enhance fingerprints at crime scenes, to remotely capture and transmit them using digital devices, as well as ‘app’ technology for recording actions at crime scenes and for recording contemporaneous notes. All of these developments are aimed at both enhancing the evidential product, that is to say recovering better quality fingerprints, as well as to speed up processing time and to make forensic service provision more cost effective, leading to the most efficient evidence for the courts.Within the laboratory, there are similar challenges to provide a leaner, more efficient service. The chemical treatment and enhancement of fingerprints requires specialist light sources, processing equipment such as vacuum chambers and superglue ovens. Such equipment facilitates the bulk processing of exhibits and speeds up the evidential journey. As early adopters of more exacting quality standards related to ISO17025 (see section 4.2.4), not only have these laboratories been required to develop ‘scientifically validated’ equipment and consumables, they will also be required to demonstrate that technology can also stand up to exacting quality assurance requirements, in addition to providing proficiency testing of practitioners within the environment.One of the major challenges in the next few years is to develop standardised technology in the domain of digital imaging. Whether it is camera equipment for storage and retrieval, case management systems, or the use of digitised forensic material, such technology must be designed to facilitate easy search and retrieval of evidential material, as well as be able to consider weeding and retention requirements around data protection, the protection of freedoms act (POFA) and Schengen legislation1. Fingerprint visualisa-tion will be important as bureaux move to more paperless working practices and future AFIS technology and remote transmission systems must be capable of working to integrated protocols that consider standardised image display requirements. It is considered essential that there are uniform standards for image display of fingerprints. Future paperless working may require higher standards than the current 500 ppi considered the norm in the UK at this time. Paperless working is important not only because of the consumable costs it saves, but also because of the quality of image presented to the examiner. Digital printing technology is not able to output 1:1 images of marks at print resolutions of much greater than 400dpi, hence a degradation in quality occurs when images of marks are printed out. It would seem prudent to ensure future-proofing of fingerprint technology that 1000ppi is considered the industry stan-dard. In addition, with the development of the Interpol I247 gateway to enable the digital transmission of fingerprints from European wide fingerprint bureaux and laboratories directly into Interpol AFIS systems, it will be incumbent upon technology providers to ensure that digital images of fingerprints are able to comply with not just industry standards around quality, but also with imaging formats such as ‘NIST images’ that are readily acceptable to multi agency AFIS infrastructures.Following on from the recommendations from the McKie inquiry, as well as those from the Forensic Science Regulator, fingerprint bureau practitioners who provide analytical evidence will have to work

1 In December 2014, the UK connected to the Schengen Information System (SIS II) allowing forces to share information on persons, property (including documents) and vehicles of interest with other European countries under specific circumstances.

15

April 2015

to more exacting standards and be able to demonstrate reliable and well-documented findings and conclusions. This requirement will demand a paperless technology that can both support and enhance current best practices around verification, contemporaneous note taking and evidential presentation of reports. This may include future challenges to develop appropriate triage tools to support focussed analysis of fingerprint material. Inevitably this may also include a requirement to further consider more accurate AFIS algorithms that are designed for ‘lights out’ processing of some crime scene fingermarks against custody databases. In addition, the way conclusions are arrived at and presented in a court room may involve more probabilistic results analysis utilising statistical models to support the evidence presented. This would bring fingerprint analysis more in line with other mainstream forensic techniques used in the criminal justice system at this time. One of the challenges from practitioners to adopting such probabilistic techniques is the perceived absence of robustness around current statistical models that fail to cater for the level of detail considered as part of the ACE-V process, namely 3rd level informa-tion. There is also more than one tool being developed for probabilistic analysis, which may use different algorithms and output different Likelihood ratios, all of which will need explanation to the court before they can become widely accepted. As such, there will be a continued need to develop best practice around statistical modelling through a collaborative approach between technology partners, academic stakeholders, and practitioners.Finally, technology must consider the destination of the evidential journey; the courtroom. There has his-torically been a lack of a joined-up approach to how technology can link crime scenes, fingerprint bureau examiners, and the CPS and courts in order to best serve justice and speed up the legal process. Mech-anisms to enhance the presentation of fingerprint evidence in court, as well as to demonstrate a link to other evidence types, using digital display and 3D representation that links into the CSI interpretation of crime scenes, will give courts a better understanding of the scientific evidence and aid the understand-ing of juries and legal professionals. Too often, resources are wasted by the compulsory attendance at court of expensive forensic personnel and experts. Technology should be able to support the need to provide secure remote testimony allowing, in theory, practitioners to present evidence from another location, avoiding the costly requirement to spend hours or even days waiting in court witness rooms. However, it is accepted that this may require a wider philosophical and practical discussion between key stakeholders to assess the viability of such processes, even if the technology were possible.

3.3 The Wider Application of Fingerprinting in the UK

It is vital that a document intended to provide a snapshot of where fingerprint science and technology is evolving, should also consider the wider use of fingerprints in the modern world outside of the tradi-tional policing environment. In addition, there needs to be an understanding of how the introduction of technology to support wider biometric applications can be introduced safely that both ensure enrolment reliability, but also safeguard privacy and data security to provide effective information governance once such systems are introduced. Finally, there needs to be a sensible debate about when it is appropriate to gather biometric data such as a fingerprint and to consider for what reason it is being used and to understand the impact on public confidence the use of such biometric material has on the public per-ception and confidence in human identification systems.Fingerprint identification systems are broad and varied in how they are used and it is true to say that only a fraction of fingerprint identification technology is now routinely used in the Policing domain. For example, fingerprints can be used to prevent fraud in voting exercises. Many countries employ finger-print registration systems to ensure against voter fraud. Fingerprints can also be used for employee access control as well as to monitor time and attendance. Within the office environment IT access authentication systems can also use fingerprints to facilitate the auditing of mouse click protection of sensitive data. Indeed, fingerprint biometrics can support a whole range of consumer applications, which aid the consumer at the point of sale. In Policing, it is known that the life span of automated fingerprint matcher technology is nearing its end as the current contract expires. There is a provision for continuity of the operational life of the ‘Ident 1’ capability, known as the Forensics and Biometric Interim Capability Service (FABrIC). This interim

16


solution will be in place until the Home Office Biometrics Programme delivers a longer-term solution to replace both FABrIC and IABS; the immigration and asylum fingerprint system. There is still a clear vision for a move to more integrated biometrics platforms that link in case management systems with a wide and diverse set of biometric tools, of which fingerprints will be just one. Now, and in the near future the Home Office Biometric Programme will be seeking ways to develop both current and future biometric platforms to consider how to serve the needs to ensure border protection, immigration monitoring, the exchange of international intelligence as well as to support a pan-European fingerprint exchange to fight organised criminality.The challenge for new stakeholders and developers willing to access this challenging arena is to seek ways to improve and facilitate new information accessibility and sharing facilities, in order to support cross agency cooperation, both domestically and across borders. Considerable on-going research is required to support development of such multi-modal biometric systems which should begin to consider the way that traditional policing infrastructures can be safely linked to wider private biometric applica-tions that facilitate a still wider capability to share valuable information and intelligence.Of paramount importance as fingerprint technology plays an increasingly important roles in the wider marketplace, which can include fingerprint applications on smartphones, gaming consoles and other networking solutions and mobile communications devices, is the security of the data held to safeguard against identity theft and other risks to public confidence in such systems. The fact that technology can track the actions of people like never before means that the role of such people as the Biometrics Commissioner is vital in protecting the interests of the public to use legislative powers and other con-sultation to protect the rights of the individual. The issues of the day, and which both developers and end users must consider, is what is ‘reasonable’ to ask for by way of biometric solutions and whether the introduction of systems are rational, proportionate and effective in providing reassurance as to the security of data. Accessibility by those who may want to gain access to such data maliciously needs to be safeguarded. As more and more fingerprint solutions become an everyday part of life (the school child using a fingerprint access verifier to buy a school dinner), the boundaries that define ‘reasonable’ and ‘proportionate’ will become more blurred. Developers and users alike will have to be guided by legislators and regulators as to what is acceptable as a viable fingerprint solution against one that will ultimately create legal as well as ethical challenges. Such challenges will ultimately guide and shape stakeholder interest in pursuing such biometric solutions and shape how academia, developers and end customers will want to take innovation to market.Through knowledge transfer, it is hoped that closer partnerships between policing, academia and the private sector will result in cross-harmonisation of technology between these different fingerprinting domains, allowing a more joined up approach to the development of novel techniques. Examples of some of these organisations and applications are provided below:

Disaster Victim IdentificationAlong with DNA, odontology and many other identifying features (tattoos, personal effects and cloth-ing), fingerprints are used as a method of disaster victim identification. After the 2004 Tsunami in South East Asia that caused the death of many residents and tourists from across the world, police agencies joined an international effort to use automated fingerprint recognition systems to try to identify victims by comparing the fingerprints of the deceased with ante-mortem fingerprints from their property, house or identification documents. Biometric data was being used, probably for the first time on this scale, in a civil application to identify victims, rather than to apprehend offenders. It is clear that had many people not enrolled into biometric systems during their lives, then many of the victims of the tsunami may still remain unidentified. This is also true of victims of recent major airline disasters.

Disclosure and Barring ServicesThe UK Disclosure and Barring services carry out vetting checks on individuals where this is required, particularly during the application process for employment working with vulnerable adults or children. Disclosure and Barring services do not routinely request or take fingerprints from applicants, but, should there be questions relating to identity during the vetting process, can request that prints are taken by the

17

April 2015

police according to the Police Act 1997, 118 part 5.

Ministry of DefenceThe Ministry of Defence (MoD) utilises fingerprints and has the facilities to collect and process finger-prints internally.For example, Defence specialist Steria partnered with Human Recognition Systems (HRS) to win the MoD contract to deliver a ground-breaking Biometric Data Capture System (BDCS). The BDCS project combined identity checking, biometric site access control and mobile biometric capabilities with HRS responsible for working with global biometric partners, L1, to integrate a number of additional key func-tions within the mobile platform.The system identifies individuals as they enter UK Controlled Bases and provides confirmation of iden-tity via multi-modal biometric enrolment and search capabilities. Individuals enrol irises, 10 fingerprints, facial image and biographic data. Viewed by the MoD as essential to help secure and control access to military facilities in the field, BDCS is currently operational across a number of military sites and provides an integral mobile biometric capability that can be scaled to meet requirements.

Border ForcesUK Border Force has facilities to collect and process fingerprints. For example, in November 2008, the UK Border Agency introduced Biometric Residence Permits. These applied to foreign nationals of coun-tries outside the European Union who were granted leave to remain in the UK. Under these regulations, people over the age of six are required to provide 10 fingerprints plus a digital photograph – similar to the regulations in other countries across Europe.

Department for Work and PensionsThe Department for Work and Pensions do not directly take or process fingerprints, but if they have criminal intelligence then they will pass this on to the police who will conduct an investigation, which may involve the use of fingerprints.

Biometrics in UK Schools In May 2012, the BBC reported that approximately 33% of secondary schools in the UK were requir-ing parents to identify themselves with biometric identification systems. The Independent newspaper has recently reported that over a million secondary school pupils are being fingerprinted, with four out of ten schools now using biometric technology for the identification of personnel. According to Sion Humphreys, policy adviser to the National Association of Head Teachers, “Schools can find this tech-nology extremely useful to help efficiently administer systems like cashless catering and borrowing library books. As a result, the use of biometrics is likely to become more widespread.” Currently the most popular system is that of fingerprint recognition, and this is being seen more regularly across the UK and Europe. The use of such technology and processes in schools is also considered subject to the Protection of Freedoms act.

The Post OfficeForeign Nationals Biometric Residence Permits: the Post Office has the facility to collect fingerprints from foreign nationals wishing to apply for a resident’s permit. Foreign nationals who have been sent a bar-coded biometric notification letter from the Home Office can go to one of 100 post office branches offering this service where their photograph will be taken and their fingerprints and signature captured and sent securely to the Home Office.

Visa Fingerprints Many UK fingerprint bureaux provide a Visa Fingerprint Service. This service is responsible for the col-lection of fingerprints of members of the public who are currently residing in the UK and require Police Clearance certificates from abroad to travel or to emigrate.

18


National Crime Agency Missing Persons BureauThe National Crime Agency (NCA) Missing Persons Bureau holds the fingerprints of persons reported missing within the UK. The bureau compares these prints against those taken from unidentified human remains.

Biometric Password ProtectionTechnology now exists that includes the facilities to utilise fingerprints as a biometric password to restrict access to a device. This has made the security application of fingerprints a routine occurrence for many consumers.

Public & Private SectorsIn the UK, Biometric identification systems are commonly used for a number of other purposes, includ-ing (but not limited to):

• Payment processing• Customer loyalty schemes• Automated cash dispensers• Access to secured areas• Passports• Work permits• Healthcare• Gyms and leisure centres• Driving licensing• Voting• Welfare

The acceptance of biometric technology as a viable method is definitely a slow-burner, but it is taking hold in the UK and across the rest of Europe. The pursuit of ultimate convenience in everyday life, com-bined with the very real threat of crime and identity theft, means that various sectors are embracing biometrics.It is important to remember the above exceptions to the standard fingerprinting process may also feed into the Criminal Justice System and that the system may deal with fingerprint evidence that has not come directly through the UK policing route. It is crucial, however, to maintain the boundaries between civil and criminal uses of fingerprints in order to protect civil liberties and maintain public confidence.As it is the remit of the Forensic Science Special Interest Group to encourage innovation, it is important to highlight the potential for innovation opportunities through the transfer of knowledge between the core fingerprinting process and other organisations carrying out fingerprinting within the UK. Whilst these opportunities are not further discussed within this report, this is acknowledged as an important area for future work.

19

April 2015

4. Key Stakeholders

For the purposes of this document the key stakeholders that take part in or influence the progression of fingerprint evidence throughout the criminal justice system have been grouped into the following cate-gories: policing; training, regulation, accreditation; industry; and research and development.

• Policing stakeholders relate to those directly involved in the location, recovery and development or analysis and comparison of fingermarks.

• Training stakeholders relates to stakeholders involved in training, regulating or accrediting finger-printing procedures.

• Industry stakeholders will include those who manufacture technology for use within the fingerprint domain; those who supply equipment and systems to fingerprinting clients; and forensic providers who offer fingerprinting services to police force based and independent customers.

• Research and development stakeholders relate to those who are either actively engaged in re-search in fingerprint technology or processes or those who educate and teach the subject matter.

The stakeholders detailed under each category are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 – Categorisation of key stakeholders

Stakeholders according to Category Subgroups within this category

Policing stakeholders (Section 4.1)

National/regional bodies – including ACPO, SPA, PSNI/FSNI, Police and Crime Commissioners, National Fingerprint Office, Home Office Ident 1, Home Office Biometrics Programme

Police stakeholders –including individual roles within the police structure such as SOCOs, Laboratory officers, imaging specialists, fingerprint examiners, scientific support managers, intelligence officers, investigating officers

Judiciary stakeholders – including CPS, defence lawyers/experts

Training, regulation and accreditation stakeholders(Section 4.2)

Training bodies – including College of Policing, Metropolitan Police Academy, SPA Training college, Police force forensic trainers

Regulation and accreditation stakeholders – including Forensic Science Regulator, Home Office, UKAS, Biometrics Commissioner

Providers of guidance – Home Office CAST

Professional bodies – including the Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences, Fingerprint Society, Skills for Justice, European Division of IAI

Industry stakeholders(Section 4.3)

Enhancement chemical and equipment suppliers – including ARRO SupraNano Ltd, Consolite Forensics, CSI Equipment Ltd, Forensic Source, Foster and Freeman, Global Forensics, Intelligent Fingerprinting, TetraSoc, WA Products, Weiss Gallenkamp, West Technology

Imaging equipment suppliers – including AGX, Foster and Freeman, Iceni Forensic Ltd

Identification technology and case management system suppliers – including Locard Case Management system, Northgate Socrates, Pattern Analytics

Specialist fingerprint consultancy – including Forensic Focus, Principal Forensic Services

Research and Development stakeholders (Section 4.4) – also see Appendix 5

Academic R&D – including University of Abertay, Dundee University, University of Huddersfield, Kings College London, University of Leicester, Sheffield Hallam University, Staffordshire University, University of Strathclyde, University of Teesside, University College London

Government R & D – including Home Office CAST, Dstl

Industry R & D – including Cognitive Consultants International, Foster Foster and Freeman, West Technology

20


Key stakeholders within each category are described, defined and discussed within the sections sign-posted in Table 1, although the included stakeholders should by no means be seen as exhaustive.

4.1 Policing Stakeholders and their principal functions

Policing stakeholders can be categorised as those involved in the operational development, analysis, and comparison of fingermarks, as well as those with a wider policing and investigative influence on this core process.

4.1.1 National and Regional Bodies, and the Judiciary

ACPO Lead for Forensic ScienceAn ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) Officer is appointed as the National Policing Lead for Forensic Science, part of the ACPO Crime portfolio. This role is currently performed by the Chief Con-stable of West Midlands Police. The Forensic Science portfolio is subdivided into committees that focus on particular aspects of forensic science in general (such as Training and Standards) and some on fin-gerprints in particular. Such committees may be chaired by senior police officers or by civilian police staff such as scientific support managers. Within the current structure sub-committees of relevance to fingerprints exist covering Fingermark Enhancement Laboratories and Crime Scene Examination. Both of these are run by scientific support managers.

ACPO Lead for Forensic Databases and FingerprintsAn ACPO Officer is appointed as the National Policing Lead for Forensic Databases and Fingerprints. This role is currently performed by the Chief Constable of West Mercia Police. The principal concern of this group is the administration of the principal identification databases operated within the UK, namely Ident 1 (the fingerprint database, containing 7.1 million 10 print sets), and the National DNA database (NDNAD).

Scottish Police Authority (SPA)Forensic science provision in Scotland now comes under the remit of the Scottish Police Authority (SPA), providing a comprehensive crime scene to court service, including fingerprints as one of many disciplines under the remit of one organisation. In the past, forensic services in Scotland were provided by Scottish Police Services Authority (SPSA) but SPA now provides a complete and continuous service, bringing the various forensic laboratories closer together under one organisation in a more centralised geographical location.

Northern Ireland (PSNI and FSNI)Forensic science provision in Northern Ireland is partly conducted by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), which has a fingerprint enhancement laboratory and fingerprint bureau. PSNI work with the Forensic Science Service of Northern Ireland (FSNI), which has facilities equipped to conduct joint forensic examinations for fingerprints and DNA, and also deals with the forensic aspects of most of the serious crimes investigated within Northern Ireland.

Criminal Justice SystemCriminal justice is the over-arching system of practices and institutions of governments directed at upholding social control, deterring and mitigating crime, or sanctioning those who violate laws with criminal penalties and rehabilitation efforts. Those accused of crime have protections against abuse of investigatory and prosecution powers.

21

April 2015

The CJS is the end user of fingerprint evidence. In the CJS the outputs of fingermark recovery and com-parison are used in the courtroom to assist juries and the judiciary in decision making regarding guilt or innocence of the accused. Within the CJS, judges and prosecution and defence lawyers may require an understanding of fingerprint evidence, and/or rely on information provided by expert witnesses.

Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)The Crown Prosecution Service is responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police in England and Wales.

4.1.2 Police Forensic Stakeholders

Scenes of Crime OfficersScenes of Crime Officers (SOCOs) (also known as Crime Scene Investigators (CSIs), Crime Scene Examiners (CSEs) and Scientific Support Officers (SSOs), depending upon the organisation in question) attend crime scenes to record and package forensic evidence, including fingermarks. In some police forces, Volume Crime Scene Examiners (VCSEs) are also employed, who are responsible for attending scenes of volume crime (such as thefts and burglaries), allowing the remaining SOCOs to focus on more major crime scenes. SOCOs often use physical techniques such as powdering to develop latent fingermarks at crime scenes and will then submit fingerprint lifts manually to the Fingerprint Bureau, or electronically via remote transmission devices from the SOCO bases. If items of evidence are present at the scene that are not suitable for powdering in situ then these items are collected by the SOCO, packaged to preserve the surface for future fingermark examination, and submitted to the Fingerprint Enhancement Laboratory. SOCOs are usually the first step in the process of the recovery of fingerprint evidence. SOCOs are increasingly being asked to develop more marks at the crime scene, scanning lifts or photographing marks in situ and transmitting the images back to the Fingerprint Bureau using remote transmission devises.

Fingerprint Enhancement LaboratoriesFingerprint enhancement laboratories (sometimes known as Fingerprint Development Laboratories) are responsible for the visualisation of latent fingermarks on items of evidence that have been recovered from scenes of crime (See Scene of Crime Officer), providing an in-house fingerprint recovery service to support operational policing. The laboratory must determine the most appropriate technique or series of techniques to visualise and enhance the fingermark according to the type and condition of the surface in question. The Centre for Applied Science and Technology (CAST) Fingermark Visualisation Manual (see Regulatory stakeholders in section 4.2) advises on best practice techniques and processes for the recovery of latent fingermarks. Often, the process of fingerprint recovery will begin with the use of a number of forensic light sources to attempt to visualise ridge detail present before chemical processes are used to develop the fingermark. Visualised or developed fingermarks are then captured, either pho-tographically or using a specialist method of image capture (see Photographic Services). Images of the developed fingermarks are submitted physically by a Scientific Support Courier or electronically via a number of systems including remote transmission technology to individual Fingerprint Examiners or to the Fingerprint Bureau generically. Each UK police force has traditionally run its own in-force laboratory but it is increasingly common for forces to share laboratory facilities as a predictive cost saving measure. Police forces may share labo-ratory facilities between forces, or they may make use of shared laboratory facilities with industry, local government, or academia. Case Study 1 provides an example of the collaborative partnership between Hampshire Police and Portsmouth University.

22


CASE STUDY 1

Sharing Academic and Fingerprint Laboratory Resources: Portsmouth University and Hampshire PoliceHampshire Police is an example of a police force fingerprint laboratory that now shares resources with both the local government and academia. The fingerprint laboratory shares a facility with Hampshire County Councils Sci-entific Services and occupies its own laboratory areas within this building; operating in isolation from Scientific Services. However, as a result of the shared site, Scientific Services have now taken on some analytical work for Hampshire Police which has reduced the cost associated with the extensive outsourcing of this work for the fin-gerprint laboratory, and has ensured continued work for Scientific Services.

Portsmouth University Institute of Criminal Justice Studies (ICJS) and Hampshire Police Scientific Support have entered into a partnership that is focussed upon sharing resources and transferring knowledge. The partnership began informally approximately four years ago. Dr Paul Smith, Senior University Tutor at the ICJS, originally approached Hampshire police as part of some research that the university was carrying out into the use of the GL scanner (used to provide a scanned image of fingermarks lifted with a gel lifter), and through a business process review that Portsmouth University undertook on behalf of Hampshire Police Fingerprint Enhancement Laboratory. The fingerprint laboratory was keen to work with Portsmouth University as it had a need for research but lacked the resources to carry this out internally. Thus, an informal partnership commenced in which students carried out an internship within the fingerprint laboratory on an ad hoc basis during their undergraduate degree at the ICJS, the intention being that students mentored by Hampshire police would then carry out research projects to their benefit. Students would opt into this process, as it was not included as a requirement of their course, and would receive a mentoring and training programme at the laboratory. Portsmouth University have made a substantial investment in the partnership, investing in both a wet and dry lab at the university site along with rehousing the vacuum metal deposition machine (used for fingermark development) belonging to Hampshire Police that could no longer be housed within the fingerprint laboratory.

The university has now set up a working group to coordinate the mentoring program and is moving to formalise the relationship through the acquisition of a new facility to be shared by the ICJS and Hampshire Police. A number of the benefits of this partnership are described in Table 2 as are the challenges to date, in Table 3.

23

April 2015

Table 2– Advantages of Portsmouth University and Hampshire Police collaboration.

Portsmouth University ICJS Students at Portsmouth ICJS Hampshire Police Fingerprint Laboratory

• The university has gained a unique selling point; the opportunity for students to take part in this internship programme and gain real life practical experience within a forensic setting. Such experience that is not commonly possible outside of employment or during other degree courses.

• The university may gain publications as a result of student projects that are relevant real world research.

• The university has gained guest lecturers from the fingerprint department who discuss the work of the laboratory as well as promoting the internship opportunity.

• The university has built a solid working relationship with the police that can be developed in the future and may lead to further research and innovation partnerships.

• Students gain real world experience and carry out all aspects of the fingerprint laboratory job role. They do not just work on the glamorous or more interesting exhibits and processes, but also carry out routine admin and cleaning tasks that are part of the real world job role.

• Students gain transferable skills from the workplace applicable to future employment, such as punctuality, a good work ethic, and team working.

• Students are able to gain experience of dealing with real casework and experience first-hand the importance of maintaining the continuity and integrity of this evidence.

• Students have the opportunity to promote themselves as reliable and skilful fingerprint technicians, potentially leading to employment within the force. Students can be considered ‘job ready’ after completing their degrees (although internship is not a substitute for full in-house or external official training such as that offered by the College of Policing). Two students from the first year of internships have achieved employment within the police force upon completion of their degrees.

• Students are able to carry out undergraduate research projects that seek to solve real world problems, leading to research, which is likely to be highly publishable and relevant.

• Students are able to take advantage of the expertise of the fingerprint technicians whilst carrying out their research and are able to use a combination of the university’s laboratory facilities (a small scale replica of the police facilities) or facilities owned by the police (such as a Vacuum Metal Deposition chamber).

• The police have gained additional human resources who, after some initial training, are able to carry out certain tasks unsupervised freeing up the time of the practitioners for more complex tasks.

• The police have gained the opportunity to commission bespoke research that could be of direct benefit to their operational output.

• Practitioners have gained a sense of job satisfaction through the mentoring and supervision of students.

• The police have gained access to equipment purchased by the university that could not be procured by the police force due to budgetary limitations.

• The police have gained a storage facility for their Vacuum Metal Deposition chamber, which requires specialist housing and could not be transported to the new facility shared with Hampshire Council Scientific Services.

• Through mentoring students at the laboratory practitioners will gain associate lectureships at Portsmouth University, meaning that they can access the academic resources available through the university.

24


Table 3 – Challenges of Portsmouth University and Hampshire Police collaboration.

From the perspective of Portsmouth University ICJS

From the perspective of Hampshire Police Fingerprint Laboratory

• This partnership has required the university to invest in equipment and facilities. Whilst students are able to use police equipment for the purposes of their internships, it is necessary that the students are able to use non-operational equipment for research due to strict calibration requirements of ISO 17025 and the need for operational equipment to be in constant operational use.

• There has been some red tape that has needed to be broken through. Students need to be security cleared prior to the internship and there are legal issues surrounding formalising the partnership.

• If students do not perform to a high standard or lack enthusiasm for the project then this can have a negative impact on the reputation of the university and the success of the partnership. This will be addressed in the future by a more comprehensive selection process for interns to ensure enthusiasm and competence.

• There are a number of issues surrounding security clearances, confidentiality, and health and safety that need to be addressed. Equally there are issues of quality that need to be considered, due to the quality standards and calibration required as a result of ISO17025 accreditation.

• The potential risk of error occurring as a result of work carried out by a student intern. This is managed by strict quality assurance of all work carried out by mentees.

• The time consuming nature of training an intern, meaning a reduction in the achievable workload of a practitioner during the time of this supervision.

• Frustrations associated with training a student who will not necessarily be a long-term employee of the laboratory.

• Issues with the quality of the work of individual interns and those with insufficient levels of skill/commitment.

• Practical problems associated with the relocation of police equipment to the university campus. There are issues associated with transporting exhibits onto the university campus for treatment with VMD (now housed at the university), and the safe and secure transfer of firearms onto the campus for research and analysis is a current issue.

The success story of this academic – practitioner partnership demonstrates the potential to overcome the challenges, inherent in partnerships of this kind, to successfully share expertise, knowledge, facili-ties and equipment. In times of financial uncertainty, it would seem that this is a practical and sensible approach benefiting both sides of the partnership. Whilst there may be certain practical and logistical barriers to similar collaborations between other police forces and universities, it would seem that this is a good model for other stakeholders to investigate further.

Fingermark Development PractitionersFingermark Development Practitioners (also known as Laboratory Practitioners or Fingerprint Enhance-ment Practitioners) work within Fingerprint Enhancement Laboratories. Practitioners work to visualise fingermarks on items of evidence that have been recovered from crime scenes by Scene of Crime Offi-cers. They select and carry out the most appropriate fingermark development technique, or sequence of techniques, according to the substrate of the item and the conditions it was found in (for example, whether it has been wet or dry), examine the item for developed (visible) fingermarks, and determine whether each fingermark is of sufficient quality to be submitted to the Fingerprint Bureau to be com-pared with fingerprints of persons of interest in the case. Fingermark Development Practitioners may also attend crime scenes to apply certain chemical treatments to fixed surfaces that cannot be removed from the crime scene and are not suitable for treatment using the range of processes available to the Scene of Crime Officers.A summary of some common fingerprint development techniques is provided in Appendix 1.

25

April 2015

Photographic ServicesPolice Forces often have their own in-house photographic services or imaging department. This depart-ment will often deal with all image capture of developed fingermarks and the production of hard copy or electronic images of these fingermarks for submission to the Fingerprint Bureau. Some Finger-print Enhancement Laboratories will carry out their own photography or other imaging processes and Scenes of Crime Officers will also photograph fingermarks developed in-situ at the crime scene.

Scientific Support CouriersScientific Support Couriers are often used to securely transport physical items of evidence between departments within scientific support where these departments are not located on the same site. Often, electronic barcoding systems will be used to ensure that submission and receipt of items is recorded on evidence management systems to ensure continuity and the maintenance of a chain of custody. In relation to fingerprint evidence, a courier may transport items of crime scene evidence to a Fingerprint Enhancement Laboratory and may transport developed fingermark lifts or images from the laboratory to the Fingerprint Bureau.

Fingerprint BureauThe Fingerprint Bureau is typically an in-house service within each UK Police Force, although, like Fin-gerprint Laboratories, some forces are also beginning to share this resource. Within the bureau the force’s collection of ten-print fingerprint sets will be stored, either electronically or in paper form. The bureau is the workplace of Fingerprint Examiners and other members of police staff who have a role in the process of the comparison of a crime scene fingermark with the fingerprints of persons of interest associated with an investigation, or to sets of elimination fingerprints supplied by consent, which may include victims of crime and associated friends, family members or colleagues.

Fingerprint ExaminersFingerprint Examiners are also known as Fingerprint Experts (though it is for the courts to decide whether the examiner has the skills and qualifications to be accepted as an expert in the eyes of the judiciary) and Latent Print Examiners. The role of a Fingerprint Examiner is to analyse a fingermark that has been recovered from a crime scene, observing and documenting the details present within the mark so as to establish whether it contains sufficient detail to be compared to an exemplar fingerprint (often that belonging to a suspect in the case or someone who has come to light as a result of a match against an automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS) or to eliminate individuals from the case). In the UK, the AFIS system currently in operation is called Ident 1. If sufficient detail is present then the examiner will carry out the comparison of the mark with an exemplar print. The exemplar print may have been pro-vided to the fingerprint bureau through intelligence in the case, or returned by an AFIS search for similar fingermarks contained within the database. It should be noted that a victim or member of the public could also donate an exemplar print in order to eliminate them from investigation etc. If an examiner is able to make an identification between a crime scene fingermark and an exemplar fingerprint, then this fingermark is passed to an additional fingerprint examiner to verify the conclusion. While many UK bureaux currently require a total of three checks against every identification (the original checker and two further checkers), some bureaux are now considering reducing this requirement to only one verification (total of two checks only). There is no legislative or scientific reason for the three-check process and this is a historic process that is seen by some as increasingly redundant in the modern bureau environment. The outcome of a fingerprint comparison can either be an identification, an elimination, or the compari-son could be inconclusive. Fingerprint examiners follow the ACE-V process as summarised in Appendix 2.

Ten print OfficersHistorically, UK Fingerprint Bureaux carried out comparisons using paper based ten-print cards taken from persons in connection with criminal cases. It was the job of a ten-print officer to be responsible for the filing of ten-print cards after having used Ident 1 to provide proof of identity checks against existing ten-prints held on file, so that records held on the Police National Computer (PNC) might be accurately

26


maintained and updated. Most UK Police Forces are in the process of digitising their ten-print fingerprint records and are also moving toward what is known as ‘lights out processing’ whereby most ten-print card checks will become an automated process. This will reduce staffing and storage requirements meaning that these Fingerprint Bureaux will, essentially, be able to move toward a paperless facility; fully computerised and with smaller number of comparison centres.

Fingerprint Bureau ManagerA Fingerprint Bureau Manager will often have responsibility for the overall running of the fingerprint bureau, although, in some cases, this responsibility may fall directly to the Scientific Support Manager.

Fingerprint TrainersFingerprint Bureaux often have an in-house training officer to assist in the delivery of the National Fin-gerprint Learning Programme for Fingerprint Examiners run by the College of Policing, or to deliver a comparable training programme in-force. The trainer will also be responsible for ensuring the Continual Professional Development (CPD) and Continual Professional Competency (CPC) of Fingerprint Examin-ers within the Bureau.

Scientific Support ManagersTypically UK Police Forces employ a Scientific Support Manager (SSM) who has responsibility for the provision of forensic evidence to an operational policing customer, be this through in-house analysis or the procurement of external forensic services. The Scientific Support Manager is often ultimately respon-sible for the Force’s Scenes of Crime Officers and Volume Crime Scene Examiners, Fingerprint Devel-opment Laboratory and Fingerprint Bureau. The requirements of different Forces vary with respect to the qualifications and background of their Scientific Support Managers. Some forces employ police staff with scientific backgrounds, whilst others employ senior ranking police officers to the role. As a number of UK Police Forces have begun to merge their Scientific Support Services the number of Scientific Support Managers has decreased. This has led to the creation of a number of similar roles, including Heads of Scientific Support responsible for a number of Police Force Scientific Support Departments.

4.1.3 Police Non Forensic Stakeholders

Senior Investigating Officers (SIO)The Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) is the police officer (typically the rank of Detective Inspector or above) responsible for leading a criminal case. In serious cases, the SIO may deal directly with the Fin-gerprint Enhancement Laboratory and Fingerprint Bureau to request results and updates in relation to the progress of the fingerprint evidence, particularly if the case is time-pressured or sensitive. The SIO may provide intelligence to the Laboratory in order to prioritise evidence recovery in areas of high importance, although should control the information provided in order to mitigate the potential for cog-nitive bias (see section 6.3).

Exhibits OfficerAn exhibits officer is the police officer within the investigative team who has been assigned responsibility for the organisation, continuity and integrity of all exhibits in relation to the case.

IntelligenceIntelligence in relation to a criminal case is information that could be used to direct or progress an inquiry. Intelligence may be passed to a Fingerprint Enhancement Laboratory to inform a targeted search for fingermark evidence or to direct resources to certain areas, prioritising items of evidence in a case. Intelligence may also be passed to a Fingerprint Bureau in the form of communicating suspects in the case for comparison purposes, or sets of fingerprints for elimination. Equally, intelligence can be passed from the Laboratory or the Bureau to the Senior Investigating Officer in the case, for example, fingerprint identifications and locations.

27

April 2015

4.2 Training, Regulation and Accreditation Stakeholders

The ‘training, regulation, and accreditation’ stakeholder category contains stakeholders involved in the training for, regulating, or accrediting of fingerprinting procedures. This category includes stakeholders and organisations with regulatory powers as well as those who take on more of an informal regulation role. Stakeholders are listed alphabetically with a description of their role in, or influence on, the finger-printing process. This section also provides a number of case studies with additional information about particular aspects of training, regulation and accreditation with UK fingerprinting.

4.2.1 Training Stakeholders

The College of Policing (CoP)The Forensic Centre of the College of Policing has deve

fingerprinting – the uk landscape · comparing a fingerprint against a catalogue of known...

Documents